Leary v. Dutchess Apartment Associates, LLC

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated June 2, 2014, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed with costs. “A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it” (Petersel v Good Samaritan Hosp. of Suffern, N.Y., 99 AD3d 880, 880 [2012]; see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; Halpern v Costco Warehouse / Costco Wholesale, 95 AD3d 828, 828 [2012]; Kokin v Key Food Supermarket, Inc., 90 AD3d 850 [2011]; Arzola v Boston Props. Ltd. Partnership, 63 AD3d 655 [2009]). Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not create the allegedly dangerous condition and that it did not exist for a sufficient length of time for them to remedy it. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Rallo v Man-Dell Food Stores, Inc., 117 AD3d 705 [2014]; see also Ramsey v Mt. Vernon Bd. of Educ., 32 AD3d 1007 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.